Welcome

Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Author
Topic: [XVII IAC] GREAT Siliciano!!! (Read 6396 times)

I've just listened to his speech through real time webcast. Main points:

- Siliciano has reported several new (and conceptually very different) experiments which demonstrate that residual viremia is COMPLETELY due to reservoirs and their latently infected cells reactivation, NOT to ongoing HIV replication in despite of HAART

- so, HAART is potent enough - its intensification is USELESS in order to speed up the time to full reservoirs decay/eradication (roughly 70 years, as calculated a decade ago)

- all that proves that the FIRST STEP - i.e. complete inhibition of HIV replication using HAART - has been really and successfully done

- the SECOND STEP will be the activation of ALL the latently infected cells, WITHOUT damaging the patient because of immune hyperactivation; the THIRD and last STEP will be their destruction

- with regards to second step, Siliciano's team has created an "in vitro" model of the reservoirs, so that compounds can be tested very quickly to see which are able to do the job.

P.S. Sorry for possible inaccuracies, but I did all this in a hurry.

...And sorry for mixing up "residual" and "ongoing" in the original post, too!

Perhaps you shouldn't rush to post everything that you hear? The purpose of this forum is not just for news type flashes but discussions of studies and articles often linked so that others can review and examine one's findings.

I am asking that you not rush every item that you hear about the conference onto the boards. It will overrun them with multiple and I suspect often confusing items that will not necessarily add to most understandings of what is going on in IAC

There are a lot of dead ends in research including a lot of wasted time and resources.

Am I saying this in regards to some sort of rationale that we don't investigate everything? Nope.

I am saying though that your very response strikes the center of my worry of some of the hype I am seeing of new developments while there is a simultaneous dismissing of existing and proven methods that are being improved on.

Believe it or not, I'm a big cheerleader (you should see the size of my pom-poms) for most research, but it is worrisome how some of the latest studies and findings are being exploited to mean that we will be free of HIV in the next couple of years instead of embracing the incredible reality that most of us are getting both more and better years added to our lives.

leit -- that was a great post and thanks so much very perfect and real science info, keep up the good work, it is very important for true real information to be heard because all of activists efforts and also each persons knowledge can be helped

this is great good news also it shows a clear path to health for tens of millions of people thru science and it shows that it may be could be only a matter of time until there is a way to activate and kill all reservoirs

It's the first IAC speech I've listened to and, if I've "rushed to post", is because I find it FULL of MAJOR things (not the usual IAC chattering). Only a couple, in addiction to those reported above:- the "slope" parameter for ARV drugs- the fact that residual viremia is dominated by few constant clones, BUT these clones are DIFFERENT from those contained in resting CD4; so, it's possible that they come from INFECTED STEM CELLS (and here thinking to Dr. HŁtter's "transplanted patient" and his story is automatic...).

...But the most exciting thing was sharing my interest and enthusiasm with a nice person like you!

Well Iggy this forum is about "RESEARCH NEWS" post a research news link is a utter nonsense?....

I never said anything even resembling that statement. Leit,

I appreciate your enthusiasm and in fact am glad that you have it and want to share it, but please appreciate my point: this is not the first IAC this board has witnessed nor the first rash of exciting developments, and the I ask you to keep i=that in mind posting about all of this.

Posting of research news and reports carry a responsibility that either you have taken the time to fully read and understand it, or to post honestly stating that you found this item of interest and would like clarification from those who might know.

What I fear is that several of your posts have now taken definitive stances that have been questionable.

Please appreciate that I have no issue with your enthusiasm and excitement - only in the way you are presenting some of the findings.

No responsibility at all, if done in good faith. The name of this forum is "Research News and Studies", not "Current guidelines"! Moreover, people who read are supposed to have their own brains and their own physicians.

Quote

or to post honestly stating that you found this item of interest and would like clarification from those who might know.

That's always implicit.

Quote

What I fear is that several of your posts have now taken definitive stances that have been questionable.

And why? Everything I (and the other people) post is questionable.

Quote

Please appreciate that I have no issue with your enthusiasm and excitement - only in the way you are presenting some of the findings.

In case, I trust that you or another are absolutely able to redress the balance. Seriously.

Where have you been leit? They've been looking for a cure since the 80's.

Of course they have, Rod, and not too successfully to date either as we still don't have one obviously. However, as a newbie here one thing that's surprised me a bit in reading through this Research News section is how cynical, sarcastic, and dismissive many posters are are to others postings. Far be it for me to judge though as it's certainly occurred to me if I was an HIV long timer and had my hopes dashed time and time again I'd probably not be exactly open minded either. In fact, I'd probably be a real sonofabitch. There's absolutely a lot to be said for the saying "the proof's in the pudding" when it comes to triumphant press releases, but when long time HIV docs like Robert Siliciano and Anthony Fauci acknowledge significant progress and are optimistic, perhaps we should allow ourselves to be as well.

Whether the HIV puzzle is solved next year, in five years, or twenty five years, I think we'd be foolish not to acknowledge that from a scientific perspective, 2008 is about as comparable to 'the 80's' as the 80's are to the 1950's. Progress as it relates to the disease most likely will be made with increasing rapidity as technology in general continues to improve at a faster and faster rate as has been observed by thinkers such as John Naisbitt and others.

All the best to you and to everyone else who struggles with this disease.

IMHO, the big news (apart from the scientific ones) are:- having realized and admitted that HAART CANNOT BE A LIFELONG "therapy"- consequently, the COMMITMENT to find a cure.

And the most important thing is that this commitment looks no longer abstract or unrealistic as it could be some years ago. Please listen carefully to Siliciano report, appreciate his findings on the nature of latently infected T cells and, above all, the creation of "in vitro reservoirs". It's a HUGE breakthrough.

I'm not certain why it took you three days to respond to me, but I don't think that you used that time to consider anything I said.

There seems to be a repeated mistake by you (and a few others) to miss the fact that many of us are probably a lot more optimistic and have a lot more hope in the the current research and our future prospect then you can even imagine; many on this board have had only hope to live on for years before there was even AZT or any treatments of note. Please don't underestimate them any further. They could give you many great lessons on what real hope and optimism is - I know they have for me.

But they have also seen more false promises both of science and of shysters then they can remember. For many of them they can be optimistic and hopeful while demanding patience and reserving judgment until the finding moves beyond the lab and through several rounds of human trials. That is not irony - that is living with HIV.

Finally, many are seeing two larger pictures that you (and a few others) seem to be purposefully ignoring in the most benign scenario or trying to subvert in the worst case scenario. They are very much related to your last post to me.

The most pragmatic of the two is what has been repeated asked of you to keep in mind that there is a fine line between excitement and wanting to discuss a new finding or study, and the over hyping of it beyond the reality of what it means. If you accept that "every post is questionable" then I ask why is it so hard for you to understand why you are being asked to not use language such as stating that a study proves something, or that ARV therapy has reached its end?

The second, and in my mind the more important in relation to this board, is when you state that as a rationale for much of your overhype that everyone has there own brain and their own physician - and you may be surprised to know I agree with your latter thought. But the problem is that this is not a site comprised solely of medical specialists and people who necessarily understand the differnce from a lab finding and a practical application (or process to get there) of such a finding. When you use terminology and cite studies (many times incorrectly I might add) you need to remember your audience such as those who may be of a fragile mind regarding their lives and outlooks right now in regards to their HIV infection - not to mention the scores of people who are not infected but we know view these boards.

Granted you may feel that you are giving them hope with your posts, (but besides that idea being a sentiment and not a research news item) do you consider at all where these same people may be when they learn that the hope they have is based on something that is a 1-2 decades away, or will not pertain to them as they won't fit the criteria of the limited application of some of the studies? That's a hard emotional crash indeed and that is honestly what bothers me the most about your many of your posts.

I also ask you to consider where are you in relation to all those people who are getting infected everyday because they read somewhere that there was a cure and they no longer had to worry? As much as you want to believe in the hope of a cure is as much as some are looking for the excuse to disregard prevention methods.

For the last time, I repeat that I admire your drive to discuss and have absolutely no problem with many of the items that you have posted, but I do have an issue of your continuous misrepresentation of many points in the studies and more importantly, your defensiveness and arguments against those who try to correct your mistakes when it concerns the facts of the study.

Me neither.No responsibility at all, if done in good faith. The name of this forum is "Research News and Studies", not "Current guidelines"! Moreover, people who read are supposed to have their own brains and their own physicians.

That's always implicit.

And why? Everything I (and the other people) post is questionable.

In case, I trust that you or another are absolutely able to redress the balance. Seriously.

I'm not certain why it took you three days to respond to me, but I don't think that you used that time to consider anything I said.

And, frankly speaking, I think you didn't listen to A SINGLE WORD of Siciliano's report, which is THE ONLY SUBJECT of this thread.

Quote

you are being asked to not use language such as stating that a study proves something, or that ARV therapy has reached its end

First: I wrote that ARV therapy has reached its TOP, not its end! Verbatim: "As Siliciano has explained today, in terms of efficacy and in the prospect of a cure, HAART has already reached its top. So, scientifically speaking and disregarding toxicity/friendliness (though VERY important for us), is of very little interest."

Second: in his IAC report, Siliciano produced several proofs about the nature of residual viremia and reservoirs. Well, either you think Siliciano is a trickster or a you cannot tell me that I can't state that "a study proves something", since Siliciano stated that, not me!

Quote

When you use terminology and cite studies (many times incorrectly I might add)

For instance???

Quote

you need to remember your audience such as those who may be of a fragile mind regarding their lives and outlooks right now in regards to their HIV infection[...]do you consider at all where these same people may be when they learn that the hope they have is based on something that is a 1-2 decades away, or will not pertain to them as they won't fit the criteria of the limited application of some of the studies? That's a hard emotional crash indeed[...]I also ask you to consider where are you in relation to all those people who are getting infected everyday because they read somewhere that there was a cure and they no longer had to worry? As much as you want to believe in the hope of a cure is as much as some are looking for the excuse to disregard prevention methods.

Ok, maybe I'm an unwitting murderer, but you are COMPLETELY MAD for sure!